Delhi Development Authority v. Kela Devi

V.B.GUPTA, J. mw

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI CM (M) No. 1150/2010 & CM No. 16070/2010 % Judgment reserved on: 5th October, 2010 Judgment delivered on: 20th October, 2010 Delhi Development Authority Through its Vice Chairman INA, Vikas Sadan New Delhi ….Petitioner. Through: Mr. Rakesh Mittal, Advocate. Versus Kela Devi w/o Late Sh. Gopi Ram @ Gopi Chand R/o H.No. 45 & 45-A, Harijan Basti, Sawan Park Extension Ashok Vihar, Phase-III New Delhi-110052 ….Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes V.B.Gupta, J. Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner seeking quashing of order dated 10th March, 2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi. 2. Brief facts of this case are that respondent had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner claiming that her husband has occupied a piece of land in the year 1965/1966 out of Khasra Nos. 712/673 and 713/673, Village Wazirpur, Delhi and started residing there after raising a Kuccha structure and started keeping cattles thereupon on about 260 sq. yds. On the remaining portion, respondent planted trees and developed the same. The case of respondent is that the suit property falls on private land and only rest of the land has been acquired. 3. Alongwith the suit, respondent filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short as "Code") seeking injunction against the petitioner not to interfere in any manner with the possession of the respondent over the land in question. 4. Petitioner in its written statement took the stand that respondent is not in possession of Khasra Nos. 712/673 & 713/673 of Village Wazirpur, Delhi as claimed by the respondent. In fact, respondent has encroached upon the Government land which falls under Khasra No. 680 min and 692 min. The said land along with land in Khasra No. 712/673/1 is acquired land and has been placed for disposal before the Petitioner Authority and as such respondent is not entitled to any relief in equity. 5. Trial court, vide order dated 11th December, 2009 allowed the application of the respondent filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code and restrained the petitioner from interfering with the possession of the respondent, till the final disposal of the suit. 6. Petitioner filed an appeal against the order of trial court. Appeal of the petitioner was dismissed, vide impugned orders by the First Appellate Court. 7. It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner that the Civil Judge after considering the demarcation reports and relying upon the fact that the land in question comes under Khasra No. 680, wrongly concluded that the land in possession of the respondent may fall apart from Khasra No. 680/1, 680/2 and 680/3, which has already been acquired by the petitioner and physical possession of which was taken by the petitioner on 1st September, 1962. Since the land in question has already been acquired, respondent under these circumstances is a trespasser on the Government land and the Courts below wrongly concluded that there is prima facie case in favour of the respondent. 8. Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that jurisdiction of this Court under this Article is limited. 9. Article 227 of The Constitution of India reads as under; "227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court- (1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the High Court may- (a) call for returns from such courts; (b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such c